>> tonight on face the nation, the president's top national security advisor jim jones on north korea, afghanistan, and closing guantanamo bay. former president bill clinton surprise visits north korea tuesday helps secure the release of two american journalists, laura ling and euna lee, but what could this lead to, new nuclear weapon talks? >> we will ask the security advisor jim jones. >> and one of those reports that u.s. commanders in afghanistan wants more troops. we will bring in the chairman of the armed services committee, senator carl levin of michigan and key republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina. is congress trying to buy planes the pentagon doesn't want by

members of the, to fly members of congress around. but first general jim jones on face the nation. captioning sponsored by cbs "face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now from cbs news in washington, bob schieffer. >> and good morning again, general yoanls is in the studio with us this morning. thank you very much for coming, general. you went to afghanistan back in june, you took reporter bob woodward along with the trip and afterwards he reported that you told the commanders there they would have to make due with what they had. yet every day brings a new report that general mccrystal, the top american commander on the ground there is preparing a new assessment and it appears that he is going to ask for more troops. we hear that from various people, anthony cardiff from ics

is back from there and says we have set impossible goals. we set impossible time frames and you are going to have to have more resources. are you getting ready to consider putting more troops into afghanistan? >> we, first of all, it is a pleasure to be with you, thank you very much for having me. the fact is, and i get remarks on what the intention was, but the fact is, in march, we announced a very comprehensive strategy that everybody participated in, that strategy had essentially three legs, more security, followed by economic development, followed by better governance from the local levels in afghanistan. and buttressed by more rapid development of the afghan army and the afghan police. so we want to put an afghan capacity together as quickly as possible. we have over 4 40 nations on the ground, we have all of the

international organizations you could want from the un to nato, to eu, the world bank, the imf and nongovernmental organizations, and afghanistan will be solved by a better coordination of these elements. the troop strength is an important piece of it, and my message to general mccrystal and to the commanders when i went there was to say, think about the total strategy that we have all agreed to, general mccrystal is conducting an assessment at the request of secretary of defense, they -- the defense department will evaluate what general mccrystal has to say, and in due time it will come up for a decision by the president. but i did not say, i want to be clear on, this i did not say that troop strength is off the table for discussion. what i did say is that we have yet to be able to measure the implementation of the new strategy, so if you have

recommendations make it in the context of the new strategy. we have learned one thing in six years, this is not just about troop strength. >> well, but that sounds like you are getting us ready for sending more troops to afghanistan. >> let me put another thing on the table here. when the president made his decision, there were additional troops that were on the charts that the secretary of defense said at the time, mr. president, you do not have to make this decision now, this is something we can consider later after we measure the implementation of our strategy. so we will have discussions as the weeks and months go by. the big thing for us now is to make sure that the strategy is being implemented, we have got new commanders, new diplomats, we have richard holbrook who is providing the theatre engagement, it is not just about afghanistan but pakistan and what is going on there. >> general, we have been there how long? six years, and it is like, it sounds like you are

talking about we just got there. >> no, no, no. i have been involved in this for six years also. >> how bad is it there? every report we have is that it is worse than it has ever been and it has become sort of a stink hole and now you are trying to develop yardsticks to find out how well we are doing. when are we going to know how we are doing, even? >> we will -- that is a very good question, and it is a fair question. this is my opinion. my opinion was that we did not have a well articulated strategy until march of this year. we have a strategy for security, we have a little bit of a strategy for economic development, which was other people's problems and we had a strategy that may be addressed a little bit of govern nanls and the rule of law. this strategy merges all of those three things. we also are definitely going to in conjunction with our allies develop the afghan army at a faster rate and the afghan

police so we can have afghans in charge of their own destiny in a shorter period of time. so, yes, we have been there six years. but if you go back to the overall history of it, and you look at the three pillars that need to be developed, security has always been done reasonably well, although we have had some backslide since 2007, but the other two have been allowed to not develop as quickly, so in conjunction with our allies, and i want to make sure that i with a make this point as well. this is not just a u.s. problem. this is an international problem, and we cannot -- we -- i think we have the strategy and we will shortly see and i mean within a year, whether this strategy is working and then we will adjust from there. >> we will know in a year if the new strategy -- >> within a year. >> is working? >> and we have the metrics to evaluate this strategy, congress has mandated them and we are going to do them anyway, the

president has said i want regular reports as to how we are doing. >> but so far it isn't working? would that be fair to say? >> well, it is only -- >> well i mean from previous -- >> we don't even have the troop strength that has been agreed, has not even arrived there so my mark is this administration in march committed to a new strategy, where we involved afghanistan, we involved pakistan, we involved nato, the allied, we have the nato summit, where the allies had a new -- >> let me see if i can just sum this up. >> a new a attitude. >> you are going to develop a new strategy and you have a new strategy going and you may have to send more troops to afghanistan? you are not at least going to rule this out at this point? >> i won't rule -- we won't rule anything out that stands to reason, but it is fair to say that once we agree on a new strategy we want to make sure that it has a chance to be evaluated. >> okay. >> and if things come up where

we need to adjust one way or the other, and it involves troops or it involves more economic development or better assistance to help the afghan government function we will do that.& >> now, what was it last weekend secretary gates and admiral null len the joint chiefs flew out to meet with general mccrystal. >> right. >> that suggest there is may be some sort of, we may be in some sort of crisis mode this is a secret trip that wasn't announced until after they completed it. would you say that things in afghanistan at this point are they crisis level? >> well, we are coming up to a& very important election. we have, i think -- no. i don't think -- i don't think we are at a crisis level in terms of -- or that there is going to be any movement on the ground by the taliban that is going to over throw the government. we are going to have, i think, a good election, the signs are that it is going to be -- the

instruments of security are being well thought out. i think with the success that we had on the pakistan side of the border, which we can talk about if you like, and the growing troop strength by the u.s., and some of our allies on the afghan side, i think the security aspect of things is going to get better. there is going to be a little bit more fighting, unfortunately we are taking more casualties, but if we are able to marry up the other two legs of this three legged stool i mentioned, put things that will change the economic forecast for the afghan people, on the ground, put afghan troops, afghan police in the industrial languages and towns, i think that is the future. >> let me ask you about this situation in pakistan, mehsud the top taliban man, i heard you say earlier you were 90 percent

sure you got him. now how important is that. >> well, i think it is very important. first of all, it is important because this is pakistan's public enemy number one, if i could. and he has -- he controls a very violent aspect of the insurgent problems in -- on the pakastani side of the border. and this is a big deal, and -- >> let's talk a little bit about the developments in north korea. former president clinton went there and he got these people, we now know it was north koreans says if you will send him, we will let these two young americans go. we also know that, because i have heard you already report this, that the president, former president did have conversations with them on a variety of subjects. what happens now? do we expect some development here now?

>> well, we hope so. president clinton did have the opportunity to talk to north korean leader and suggest that the happy scene that was carried out in california with the unification of families could have happened with the detainee from south korea in seoul or in tokyo with the japanese abduct tees and he represented our desire to have them released as well i think that obviously with his, as former president with his father, the korean leader's father, was, had eight years of experience with dealing with north korea, i can't and he was able to, in his own way, be, i hope, persuasive that there is a better way, there is a better path, that it is clear that a couple of things are clear, one is that we sent no official or

unofficial message from our government, so there was no -- there is nothing secretive here, that north korea knows that the path to talking is through the six party process, and that within that six party process -- >> they seem to want to have some sort of one-on-one dialogue with the united states. would we be willing to do that? >> sure within the context of the six party talks. >> what does that mean? if they come back to the talks we will talk to them bilaterally within those talks. we have coordinated all of this by the way with the other allies, the chinese, the russians, the south koreans, the japanese. so the path is clear, and president clinton is a very convincing gentleman and i hope he was able to convince them. >> why do you think the north korean leader wanted to do this was he trying to convince his

own people? was he trying to impress his military, look i can get a former president of the united states to come over here. that shows you i am still a strong and vibrant leader? or was he trying to impress the republicans of the world? what was that all about? >> you know, i would be guessing. you know, internally, he can manipulate this anyway he wants but as far as the rest of the world i think we are clear on what it was and what it wasn't. >> and what it was. >> what it was is a private humanitarian mission to rescue and obtain the release of two girls so they could be with their families and that is president obama's -- that was his goal in this. >> finally, gitmo. every indication is you will not be able to make the president's deadline of closing that down by the end of the year. >> this is a complex issue and we are working on this every single day. i still believe that we can

achieve our goals, but it is a complex issue. >> but you are not sure if you are going to make it? >> no, i think we will. i think there are some things on the table that we can't necessarily talk about right now, but hopefully there are some signs here that we will find the right way to do this. >> general, thanks for being with us and i hope you come back. >> it is a pleasure. >> and we will be back with our round table from congress in just a minute.

>> and with us now from clemson, south carolina, senator lindsey graham of the armed services committee and here in the studio with us senator karl lesson the head of that committee. let's start with general jones what. what are you going to do senator levin if the president comes to you and says we need a lot more troops for afghanistan? >> it is too early to know what

congress would do. it depends what the facts and arguments are. it depends what our command in other words the field say. it depends also in part what our nato allies are willing to do. many have comport, some of them, a number of countries have taken some very hard hits, losses of troops that a lot of the nato allies have fallen short of the commitments and we will put maximum pressure on them to do what they promised to do in providing trainers for the afghan army and also providing money. they have promised a billion dollars along with a billion euros a long time ago and they only provided ten percent of that. so, yo, you know, afghan stay le different from, a lot different from iraq, for one thing, afghanistan is the place along with the pakistan border that the attackers were trained and harbored, that hit us on 9/11. we took our eye off that ball when we went to iraq but now we have our eye on that border, and we cannot allow that border to become a safe haven again, and something else is very significant in afghanistan. and that is that the afghan army

is cohesive, they are motivated, they hate the taliban, and so they have the moat/note administration necessary, what they don't have are the numbers yet, they have got a much, much better and quick training of the afghan army, because i think we have got to transfer this responsibility as quickly as we can to the afghans. >> senator graham, want that? what about when we put our eye back on that area along the border? what is going to need to be done there and how far do you think congress is going to be willing to go? >> well, your question was, what would congress doive president said we needed more troops in afghanistan. i am one republican that would support more troops in afghanistan. i do believe quite frankly, i will be shocked if more troops are not requested by our commanders. afghanistan has deteriorated and in july of last year the president said when he was a candidate for office that afghanistan not iraq was the central battle in the war on terror, i disagreed then because

iraq hung in the balance and iraq is more stable, the president is right, afghanistan is now the central battle front on the war in terror, that means more of everything, more troops, more political engagement, more economic engagement, karl is right our nato allies need to send more troops. the afghan army to be doubled would be a $20 billion appropriation over five years. america is now paying 90 percent of the afghan army, nato contributed their $100 million when gates passed the hat to help pay for the afghan army, so i would urge our nato allies to submit more troops, more funding and i will be shocked if more troops are not needed. we must secure afghanistan and it is not secure now because we don't have enough troops. >> well, do you have any indication that our nato allies are going to say anything more than oh it is a great idea and we would be happy to continue holding your hand, but we are not going to help you much more so what do we do after that? >> well, we have to get it right. we urge our -- you know, the

president has a lot of political capital for that in the world and he has come up with a new engagement extra strategy and hopefully they will reward the president by helping him. we have to do it, no matter what nato does, we have to make sure that afghanistan is secure for all of the reasons karl said. if afghanistan becomes a chaotic situation it affects pakistan so my message so my democratic colleagues is we made mistakes in iraq, let's not, when let's not do this on the cheek and enough combat power and engagement across-the-board to make sure we are successful and quite frankly, we have a lot of ground to make up. >> well, i am going to get back to senator levin in just a minute but industry to ask you what you mean when you say let's don't rumsfeld this thing. >> we went in with a strategy to win -- to defeat the iraqi army that worked. we never had enough troops on the ground to secure the population. you cannot have political reconciliation, economic progress, the rule of law when the judges and the economy is under siege by the enemy there

is too much violence and we lost part of afghanistan to the taliban so once we change strategy and engaged in the surge with more military power and more of everything we turned iraq around. when i am saying don't rumsfeld afghanistan, don't resist the idea that we are going to need more because we are. as much as it hurts me to say that, knowing that people in iraq will come to afghanistan to continue to fight, i think it is the only way to turnaround afghanistan. >> all right so where are you going to get these troops senator and the last time i heard the government was in kind of a crunch for money. how do you pay for all of this? >> we have to transfer a lot of responsibility to the afghan army, there was a summit, nato summit in april, there was a commitment made to have a trainer group go to afghanistan by nato countries, we have got to put a lot of pressure on nato allies that so far have not come through to do that, it is critically important, the afghan army not only needs to get to 130,000 which is the current goal from their approximately 80,000 they are at now, they

have to double that to 250,000 for all of the reasons that lindsey graham has just given, we have to protect the afghan people and they have got to protect their own people. from the taliban. and by the way, there is a lot of challenging areas in afghanistan. but afghanistan in many areas is safe and security and there are certain areas where there are challenges and we have to take those challenges. >> well would you agree with senator graham's assessment it is going to take a lot of everything, including troops. >> i think it is going to take a lot more of most things. i don't think we should commit more troops at this time, number one it takes nato allies off the hook from keeping their commitments and number two it takes some of the pressure off of the afghans themselves to help move that army much more quickly. we need their commanders, for instance, to have larger units in afghanistan. >> i want to ask you quickly about guantanamo. general jones says they still believe they can get it closed down by the end of the year. there seems to be a lot of

resistance in congress, senator mcconnell said this morning he thought there would be wide pread bipartisan opposition to closing it down, do you think it can actually be done? yes i think it is be done and the white house assured me as of yet theyesterday they are on track o get us on plan as required by law. president obama who said we have to close guantanamo, we have our key military leaders, from petraeus to our admiral mullen, the joint chief of the joint chiefs we have to close guantanamo, five former secretaries of state say, we have to close guantanamo. >> sot guantanamo has been used by terrorists as a training tool. so there is a very broad consensus among some of us, the key leaders in this country that we need to close it, because it is a security threat as long as we keep it open. and so now what i believe we need to do is to have the plan, which others have insisted we have and i agree, have that plan in place for transferring all of

those 220 people to other places -- >> are you willing to take some of those people in michigan. >> i support that, providing we have local support and the governor when w we are talking about state facilities, of course i do. you know, we should not be cowed by the terrorists so that we don't even keep them in maximum security prisons in the united states. we can't allow the terrorists to be intimidating us from trying them and keeping them in our jails. >> all right. we have to end it there. senator graham thanks for being with us this morning. and you, senator levin. back in a minute. this portion of face the nation is sponsored by ibm. let's build a smarter planet. visit ibm.com/smarter planet.

>> finally today, when the leaders of the big three auto makers flew to washington in

their private planes last year to ask for a federal bailout, congress was not amused. lines of capital lawmakers heading for microphones to denounce the auto executives got longer than lines at airport metal detectors. even the auto makers who are hardly the role models when it comes to making swift decisions quickly figured out they stepped in it, they sold the planes. what did congress figure out from all of that? apparently, that taxpayers needed to buy more planes to haul them around this is one of those stories where about here we have to insert the words i am not kidding. but the house has approved spending a half billion dollars to enlarge the fleet of air force planes that haul members of congress and officials of the federal government around. some of this is no doubt justified. the air force wants two planes to replace planes that are wearing out and it wants to buy two aircraft that it is currently leasing. but the house wants to buy four

more planes that the pentagon says it doesn't need or even want. it is congress that wants them to meet its own growing travel needs. the wall street journal and we thank them for this, reports that house members spent 3,000 days overseas at taxpayer expense last year. that is nearly four times as many days they spent overseas ten years ago at a cost of $13 million which is a tenfold increase since 1995. nothing much surprises me anymore, but when i read this stuff, i always wonder, do you think they think that no one will find out? or is it that they just don't care? back in a minute.

>> and that's our broadcast. face nation will be back right heree, tim met time, same place. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org on this week in defense news, the chief on the

electronic warfare division explains how things are being protected.